Homosexual agenda Ping!
Half-hearted Romney ping...
As long as they are not married, Mitt Romney is ok with gays adopting children.
His words and record do not match up
The ugly truth is that Obama and Romney have the exact same policy stance on gay marriage and that is that question of gay marriage should be left to the states.
Get over it!
Vote for Zer0, and probably your property will get confiscaticated by the Socialists;
Vote for Romney and suck it up, wait for another day in the United States of America - not Amerika!!
To my knowledge, throughout this campaign Romney has stated again and again (including at the debates) that he supports a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as he spoke of it at Liberty U.
I do not see him giving any opposing message on it himself.
Others in the GOP perhaps have, but on this issue I have yet to see it from Romney to date. Please point me to an opposing statement by him as regards the Marriage Amendment. All I have heard is his support of that amendment, which is exaclty in line with what he stated at the speech.
He reaffirmed this last week in a statement to Denver station KDVR-TV,
“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.”
He went on to reaffirm his supports of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman according to the National Organization for Marriage pledge he signed.
He also pledged to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, in contrast to the Obama administration, which does not defend DOMA as it thinks the 1996 law banning is unconstitutional.
You should also note, that after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays had the right to marry in MA in 2003, initially Romney said he would follow the ruling, but seek a constitutional amendment to overturn it.
Ultimately, he used a variety of tactics to try to block the ruling, but he was unsuccessful through the remainder of his term in office. This was because the overwhelming majority of legislators and Judges in Mass, for a long period of time, have been Democrats and very left leaning.
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
THE MAN WHO DESPISES AMERICA
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama-time.htm
I wish someone would pass this along to Romney:
“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”
snip http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids
I do not understand this fixation on constitutional amendments. It is highly unlikely a 2/3 majority can be obtained in both houses of Congress. In fact is it unlikely such an amendment would get a simple majority.
It is an order of magnitude more difficult to get 3/4 of the states to ratify. This means of the 99 houses in the state legislatures, 13 could block ratification.
We are rapidly approaching an election in which a proponent of gay marriage may be re-elected president. Yet people are talking about an amendment as a cure, something 20 or 30 times more difficult to achieve?I just don't get it.
It's like having difficulty completing a one-mile run today, but thinking the solution is to run a marathon tomorrow .